beyondbinaryfandomcom-20200215-history
The Brain
(coming soon) The brain is currently ''thought to be ''the central processing unit (CPU) of most organic quantum computers. Consciousness |ScienceMag:/G. Mashour/2018/The controversial correlates of consciousness> :"The mechanism of consciousness is one of the most fundamental, exciting, and challenging pursuits in 21st-century science. Although the field of consciousness studies attracts a diverse array of thinkers who posit myriad physical or metaphysical substrates for experience, consciousness must have a neural basis. But where in the brain is conscious experience generated? It would seem that, given this remarkable era of technical and experimental prowess in the neurosciences, we would be homing in on the specific circuits or precise neuronal subpopulations that generate experience. To the contrary, there is still active debate as to whether the neural correlates of consciousness are, in coarse terms, located in the back or the front of the brain (1, 2). On page 537 of this issue, van Vugt et al. (3) provide evidence that the prefrontal cortex is one of the brain regions that mediates visual consciousness. Additionally, Joglekar et al. (4) provide evidence that the prefrontal cortex is important for igniting neural networks that contribute to visual signal processing. Both studies support a model for consciousness that involves distributed and reciprocal interactions across the cortex." Neurodevelopment (TW: clinical neuronormativity, reference to neurodivergences as 'disorders') |Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat.:/Arain et. al. (2013)/Maturation of the adolescent brain> Autistic Neurology (see also Neurodivergence#Autistic Neurology) (TW: clinical neuronormativity, "typical person", reference to autism as a 'disorder') :""Overall, the control brain scans looked pretty much the same as each other." :But when they compared the brains of people with ASD [Autism Spectrum Divergence], they couldn’t find any similarities between them in terms of where functional connectivity would be typically high, and where connectivity would be low. In fact, they say it’s not even really about the weakness and strength of the connections, but rather the topology of the neural networks - so, how they’re arranged. :The team suggests that the fact that no two ASD brains they studied were the same could be a core characteristic of high-functioning ASD. They couldn’t even split the brains up into sub-groups because the way the networks were arranged was so idiosyncratic and individualised, but note that an analysis of far larger data sets could eventually uncover clustering of similar characteristics and connectivity patterns." :""From a young age, the average, typical person's brain networks get moulded by intensive interaction with people and the mutual environmental factors,” says Hahamy in the press release. "Such shared experiences could tend to make the synchronisation patterns in the control group's resting brains more similar to each other. It is possible that in ASD, as interactions with the environment are disrupted, each one develops a more uniquely individualistic brain organisation pattern."" Old Neurodivergence is the state of a brain which has taken a non-trivial development pathway, leading to stark differences in the internal neurology of the neurodivergent person, relative to others within the same society and culture. This is in opposition to neuroconvergence, which is the state of brains which operate in a convergent manner on a social level. Articles (see also Neuroscience#Brain) The empty brain - Aeon By Robert Epstein, May 18, 2016 (TW: neurosupremacy, evolutionary determinism) "Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer" "Our shoddy thinking about the brain has deep historical roots, but the invention of computers in the 1940s got us especially confused. For more than half a century now, psychologists, linguists, neuroscientists and other experts on human behaviour have been asserting that the human brain works like a computer. To see how vacuous this idea is, consider the brains of babies. Thanks to evolution, human neonates, like the newborns of all other mammalian species, enter the world prepared to interact with it effectively. A baby’s vision is blurry, but it pays special attention to faces, and is quickly able to identify its mother’s. It prefers the sound of voices to non-speech sounds, and can distinguish one basic speech sound from another. We are, without doubt, built to make social connections." "Computers, quite literally, move these patterns from place to place in different physical storage areas etched into electronic components. Sometimes they also copy the patterns, and sometimes they transform them in various ways – say, when we are correcting errors in a manuscript or when we are touching up a photograph. The rules computers follow for moving, copying and operating on these arrays of data are also stored inside the computer. Together, a set of rules is called a ‘program’ or an ‘algorithm’. A group of algorithms that work together to help us do something (like buy stocks or find a date online) is called an ‘application’ – what most people now call an ‘app’. Forgive me for this introduction to computing, but I need to be clear: computers really do operate on symbolic representations of the world. They really store and retrieve. They really process. They really have physical memories. They really are guided in everything they do, without exception, by algorithms. Humans, on the other hand, do not – never did, never will. Given this reality, why do so many scientists talk about our mental life as if we were computers?" "This kind of thinking was taken to its ultimate expression in the short book The Computer and the Brain (1958), in which the mathematician John von Neumann stated flatly that the function of the human nervous system is ‘prima facie digital’. Although he acknowledged that little was actually known about the role the brain played in human reasoning and memory, he drew parallel after parallel between the components of the computing machines of the day and the components of the human brain" "The information processing (IP) metaphor of human intelligence now dominates human thinking, both on the street and in the sciences. There is virtually no form of discourse about intelligent human behaviour that proceeds without employing this metaphor, just as no form of discourse about intelligent human behaviour could proceed in certain eras and cultures without reference to a spirit or deity. The validity of the IP metaphor in today’s world is generally assumed without question." I would argue that the author has a limited picture of what it means to process information, and that the desire to claim that humans are not information processors is rooted in a desire to say that we do not process information in the same structural, algebraic and algorithmic ways that a modern computer does. However, further points are none-the-less interesting: "The difference between the two diagrams dollar bills drawn by a student named Jinny 'from memory' and then with a physical bill to copy from reminds us that visualising something (that is, seeing something in its absence) is far less accurate than seeing something in its presence. This is why we’re much better at recognising than recalling. When we re-member something (from the Latin re, ‘again’, and memorari, ‘be mindful of’), we have to try to relive an experience; but when we recognise something, we must merely be conscious of the fact that we have had this perceptual experience before. Perhaps you will object to this demonstration. Jinny had seen dollar bills before, but she hadn’t made a deliberate effort to ‘memorise’ the details. Had she done so, you might argue, she could presumably have drawn the second image without the bill being present. Even in this case, though, no image of the dollar bill has in any sense been ‘stored’ in Jinny’s brain. She has simply become better prepared to draw it accurately, just as, through practice, a pianist becomes more skilled in playing a concerto without somehow inhaling a copy of the sheet music." I would argue the author has little understanding of the diversity of human experiences of memory, particularly people with eidetic memories who literally can recall detailed images to their mind from a single glance at an object. "Misleading headlines notwithstanding, no one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been ‘stored’ in it. The brain has simply changed in an orderly way that now allows us to sing the song or recite the poem under certain conditions. When called on to perform, neither the song nor the poem is in any sense ‘retrieved’ from anywhere in the brain, any more than my finger movements are ‘retrieved’ when I tap my finger on my desk. We simply sing or recite – no retrieval necessary." The errors in the author's logic are made very clear in the following paragraph where they seem to believe that instinctive learned habits that lead to a consistent result are somehow not the result of information processing: "My favourite example of the dramatic difference between the IP perspective and what some now call the ‘anti-representational’ view of human functioning involves two different ways of explaining how a baseball player manages to catch a fly ball – beautifully explicated by Michael McBeath, now at Arizona State University, and his colleagues in a 1995 paper in Science. The IP perspective requires the player to formulate an estimate of various initial conditions of the ball’s flight – the force of the impact, the angle of the trajectory, that kind of thing – then to create and analyse an internal model of the path along which the ball will likely move, then to use that model to guide and adjust motor movements continuously in time in order to intercept the ball. That is all well and good if we functioned as computers do, but McBeath and his colleagues gave a simpler account: to catch the ball, the player simply needs to keep moving in a way that keeps the ball in a constant visual relationship with respect to home plate and the surrounding scenery (technically, in a ‘linear optical trajectory’). This might sound complicated, but it is actually incredibly simple, and completely free of computations, representations and algorithms." The author later starts to capture the complexity of the brain's information processing networks, but insisting that this complexity is proof that the brain can't possibly be an information processor: "Think how difficult this problem is. To understand even the basics of how the brain maintains the human intellect, we might need to know not just the current state of all 86 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, not just the varying strengths with which they are connected, and not just the states of more than 1,000 proteins that exist at each connection point, but how the moment-to-moment activityof the brain contributes to the integrity of the system. Add to this the uniqueness of each brain, brought about in part because of the uniqueness of each person’s life history, and Kandel’s prediction starts to sound overly optimistic. (In a recent op-edin The New York Times, the neuroscientist Kenneth Miller suggested it will take ‘centuries’ just to figure out basic neuronal connectivity.)" "We are organisms, not computers. Get over it. Let’s get on with the business of trying to understand ourselves, but without being encumbered by unnecessary intellectual baggage. The IP metaphor has had a half-century run, producing few, if any, insights along the way. The time has come to hit the DELETE key." ---- }} Category:Neuroscience Category:Neurology Category:Psychology Category:Human Quantum Computing Category:Organic Quantum Computing Category:Physiology Category:Organic Category:Organisms